Chris Harrison

22 minutes ago, Guest JosephC12 said:

In this case how is  a majority defined...

More than half (RONR pp. 400-401).

RONR doesn't answer your question.  Have you all tried contacting the National Organization to see if they can put some pressure on the State Organization to supply those documents to you?

There isn't any mechanism under RONR to cancel a meeting.  However, what you can do is contact the members to (informally) decide when to meet (it has to be before your April meeting) or they can decide to meet at the call of the President.  Then at the time of the March meeting a member or two can meet and adopt a motion to establish an Adjourned Meeting (RONR pp. 242-246) for whatever time the members decided upon or upon the call of the President then they can adjourn and go home.

Another option, assuming there is no business so pressing it can't wait for the April meeting, is to forgo the Adjourned Meeting altogether. That member or two can call the meeting to order and immediately vote to adjourn then go home. Next meeting is then in April. 

The meeting starts when the Chair calls the meeting to order (or another member can call the meeting to order if the Chair isn't there or fails to do so).  What was the member's objection to the meeting being called to order?

On the plus side, if memory serves me correctly the Boulder Free Zone adopted RONR as its Parliamentary Authority.  So even if humankind goes the way of the Dodo The General's work still has a chance of standing tall. 

After the motion is Taken From The Table it and anything adhering to it have the same status as when it was Laid On The Table (RONR pp. 303-304).  In other words, if the motion could be amended prior to it being Laid On The Table then it can be amended after being Taken from it.

For a vote to be taken there must have been a motion pending at some point.  Is it possible that a motion was made earlier when you weren't there?  Maybe earlier in the meeting or the motion had been carried over from the previous meeting?

I'd imagine for the most part the Jury is allowed to conduct deliberations however they see fit and the only time the Judge (who have a hard enough time wrangling the lawyers ) would get involved is if they can't figure things out for themselves.

55 minutes ago, Guest SMKI2 said:

To clarify, the agenda does list the business that will be attended to at the meeting. It's Old Business items that have appeared on the agenda of the regularly scheduled monthly Board meeting, some dating back to December.

I would argue that is still too vague.  The purpose of the notice requiring "the specific business to be transacted at the meeting" is so the members know exactly what business will be conducted at the meeting which allows them to decide whether they want to attend.  In my opinion for the notice to be sufficient it would need to list each and every item of business that falls under Unfinished Business.

There really isn't anything you can do before the Special Meeting.  During the meeting it depends if you have a majority of Board members willing to back you up.  If you don't, you really don't have any parliamentary options available.  If you do have a majority of the Board members behind you two options you can take is to raise a Point of Order that the notice is insufficient because listing the purpose as "to dispense with our unfinished business and start March with a clean slate" is too vague given the Bylaws state the notice must contain "the specific business to be transacted at the meeting."  The Chair is supposed to rule and that ruling is subject to an Appeal.  You have expressed your concerns that the Chair may ignore your motions in which case you should read RONR pp. 650-653 which tells you how to take matters in your own hands if necessary.  Another option is as soon as the meeting is called to order you can move to Adjourn.

I suspect you will get better results with the first option because moving to Adjourn as soon as the meeting is started very likely will annoy the others who have taken time to attend the meeting.  I would also suggest you count the members at the meeting because if there isn't a quorum you can raise a Point of Order on that as well.

Because the answer is it depends on whether the amendment falls within scope of notice there is no way to say for sure without knowing the exact language 1) as it currently exists, 2) as is proposed, and 3) the proposed secondary amendment.

Not unless your Bylaws specifically allow voting via email (RONR p. 97).

Is the Treasurer supposed to go buy the equipment himself or merely disburse the funds to whoever has been tasked to buy it?  If someone else has been tasked with buying the equipment then have they actually asked the Treasurer for the money?  Informally the Chair can remind whoever is supposed to buy the equipment to do so (and tell the Treasurer to release the money if applicable) or the assembly can formally order it by adopting a motion on the subject.

Agreeing with everyone else I will add some citations as well.  First, see the definition of "member" on p. 3 ll. 1-5 and p. 648 ll. 11-19 which says nonmembers have no rights and the Chair can unilaterally throw a disruptive nonmember out of the meeting (subject to that ruling being Appealed by the members).  Of course, your rules may have something to say on the subject and it sounds like members of the General Membership might have a right to attend and speak for 3 minutes but you should check those Bylaws to determine whether that is actually a right or merely a custom the Board can decide to discontinue.

Ay Caramba! 

That's about the only Spanish I know compliments of Bart Simpson. 

As long as they remain members of the organization they retain the rights of members.

Deleted

There is nothing in RONR that requires the ballots be pre-printed.  Indeed as you pointed out it would be impractical to do so when you take nominations from the floor.

I also wonder why he didn't bring this up as a Point of Order when the election was pending where the Chair (and Membership if an Appeal was raised) would decide on the propriety of conducting the election in the way it was?

Any reason why you told us this guy is a Canadian? 

Probably not.  Are both terms used in the governing documents?

3 hours ago, Rob Elsman said:

RONR does not have rules prohibiting, or even advising, that a member of a committee should abstain on account of a perceived "conflict of interest" by way of a relationship of affinity.

Though depending on the relationship between the Guest Steve and applicant it might constitute a personal interest not in common with the other Committee members.  In that case Guest Steve probably shouldn't vote but as was mentioned above he can't be compelled to abstain and the decision whether this uncommon personal interest exists belongs to him not the other member.

They should be approved at the normal time that minutes are approved.  However, since the meeting was in Executive Session the minutes should be also approved in Executive Session.

Do your bylaws actually say members who haven't paid their dues lose their right to vote?  Or is it merely a custom that if they don't pay they don't get to play (vote)?

You are correct that absentee voting isn't allowed unless the Bylaws provide for it (RONR pp. 423-424) and indeed if you decided to do it anyway all the votes would be null and void (RONR p. 251[d]).

The item remains on the Table until a motion is made to Take From The Table or if it isn't taken from the Table by the end of the next session the Table vanishes and the motion falls to the ground (RONR p. 214 ll. 19-28)..

If the Bylaws say amendments take effect at the close of the Annual Meeting then they take effect at the close of the Annual Meeting.  If you want to change that then you would need to amend the Bylaws (but that amendment won't take effect until the close of the Annual Meeting ).